Dominic Cummings wanted to put the cat among the pigeons so in that sense he's been sucessful. I don't know whether even he expected it to end with discussions on whether or not the Queen should resign.
I fully expect this decision to be overturned in the SC for the reasons given by Lord Sumption on Newsnight. Proroguing for a new Queen's speech is legal and part of our constitution....
The court fully acknowledges that, but went on to rule that the principal purpose of this particular prorogation, on the evidence before it, was to frustrate Parliament.
That is nonsensical .How do you weigh such motivation and what is the law that says what the principal purpose has to be in any political decision ? SC will have to overturn or every single executive decision will be up to challenge.
Brexit Parties down to 45%. And that was before the party of law & order discovered they'd elected a lying crook
You're actually going to spin a 14% Con lead as good news for REMAIN?
You surely don't think the blue rinses are going to stay loyal now that Boris has been caught telling their Queen porkies?
What "porkies" did Boris tell the Queen ? This is highly defamatory .
I think it's fairly clear from this bit: ...although advice to HM the Queen on the exercise of the royal prerogative of prorogating Parliament was not reviewable on the normal grounds of judicial review, it would nevertheless be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, which was a central pillar of the good governance principle enshrined in the constitution; this followed from the principles of democracy and the rule of law. The circumstances in which the advice was proffered and the content of the documents produced by the respondent demonstrated that this was the true reason for the prorogation....
Observing this government's death is almost getting revolting. It is like watching a medieval execution where the victim is kept alive to see his own organs and entrails slowly removed. The Executive is being slowly executed.
And yet we've just had an opinion poll giving this government a 14% lead which in an election would translate to a majority of nearly 150 seats?
lol - I very much doubt that will happen. It is the ground game that counts and the opposition parties have a tremendous advantage in numbers, motivation etc...
OK so the Opposition will get on with it then?
Parliament will vote for an election, when it suits them not when it is about giving BJ and the nutters around him a No Deal Brexit. The Government has been held to account by the H of C, long may that continue.
Solution to several issues at once - reconvene the UK parliament in Edinburgh.
Addresses: widespread distaste among voters for Westminster; unlawful prorogation; London-centricity; feeling that Scotland is ruled from 'abroad', issues with the fabric of the Houses of Parliament.... Plus lots more no doubt.
It would certainly be a good idea to rotate it, through all four parts. MPS would have an excuse for a house in each location. In retrospect it would have been far better than devolution which has just given us loads more lightweight politicians.
Grounds for Brenda to fire Boris? Historically, ministries had to have the confidence of Parliament and the Crown. The latter has become a dead letter as in effect the ministry is the Crown for almost all practical purposes, but it is based on the assumption that ministers are actually telling the Queen the truth when advising her on exercising her prerogative powers.
HMQ does not "fire" her Prime Minister.
But if the supreme court finds the PM has acted unlawfully in the advice he has given her then of course his position and that of his government would be untennable.
Do you think he would resign on that basis!? I would expect him to come out strongly against judges and Scotland. There is no crisis for him that cant be solved by dividing the country further apart.
One court has ruled that the action was not illegal. Another court has reached a different opinion. Both have allowed the Supreme Court to have the final word. Why not allow it to do so rather than relying on one opinion rather than the other to pass judgement in the meantime? Everything else is speculation for now.
As for No 10's comments, they are not without foundation. The practice they are drawing attention to is standard procedure in the US. Lawyers routinely refer national cases to federal courts with known tame judges which are judged most likely to reach a judgement in their favour, based on their past record. The case is then referred up the chain to the Supreme Court on appeal. It is accepted practice in the US, and as a consequence the decisions in the lower courts are of limited political consequence, because people are familiar with the game being played. That is particularly the case where different federal courts have reached contrary opinions on the same case.
The Prime Minister's spokesman is accusing senior Scottish judges of political bias and fails to recognise that Scots law is entirely distinct to English law, while also lying about the High Court decsion last week. The practice you are describing is forum slection, by whch different federal courts intepret the same law in different ways. That is entirely different to what has happened today.
What kind of thicko uses a US legal point to refer to a UK legal point, Phil is obviously not the full shilling. or a CCHQ bot.
Given that proroguing is legal they will probably just say: "ok sorry about that, we are now going to prorogue parliament for the following reason XXXXX"
Not 100% sure what that XXXXX will be but it will sound vaguely coherent.
But that's precisely what they did, they just lied about the reason
The court held that he misled the Queen as to the reasons for the prorogation. It held that he did it, not to prepare for the Queen’s Speech, but rather to prevent parliamentary oversight of the executive
The answer to that is going to be that there isn't one single reason for prorogation, but multiple. This was already the longest parliamentary session in UK history, largely for Brexit-related reasons …. which no longer apply.
"But the Court of Session judges said they were unanimous in their belief that Mr Johnson was motivated by the "improper purpose of stymieing Parliament", and that he had therefore effectively misled the Queen in advising her to suspend Parliament."
Brexit Parties down to 45%. And that was before the party of law & order discovered they'd elected a lying crook
You're actually going to spin a 14% Con lead as good news for REMAIN?
You surely don't think the blue rinses are going to stay loyal now that Boris has been caught telling their Queen porkies?
What "porkies" did Boris tell the Queen ? This is highly defamatory .
I think it's fairly clear from this bit: ...although advice to HM the Queen on the exercise of the royal prerogative of prorogating Parliament was not reviewable on the normal grounds of judicial review, it would nevertheless be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, which was a central pillar of the good governance principle enshrined in the constitution; this followed from the principles of democracy and the rule of law. The circumstances in which the advice was proffered and the content of the documents produced by the respondent demonstrated that this was the true reason for the prorogation....
Observing this government's death is almost getting revolting. It is like watching a medieval execution where the victim is kept alive to see his own organs and entrails slowly removed. The Executive is being slowly executed.
And yet we've just had an opinion poll giving this government a 14% lead which in an election would translate to a majority of nearly 150 seats?
lol - I very much doubt that will happen. It is the ground game that counts and the opposition parties have a tremendous advantage in numbers, motivation etc...
OK so the Opposition will get on with it then?
Parliament will vote for an election, when it suits them not when it is about giving BJ and the nutters around him a No Deal Brexit. The Government has been held to account bt the H of C, long may that continue.
But you've just basically said all the Opposition have to do is turn up on the day and the election is in the bag?
You can't get a better guarantee that No Deal is off the table than Corbyn in Downing St with a big majority until 2024 at least?
Advice to Boris and Cummings: next time, don't write it all down.
The UK system seems increasingly designed to promote sofa government as practised by Blair.
Yes, our system (and the American one) depends on our rulers following conventions, not laws. If they decide to ignore, or at least not follow, these conventions there is not a lot we can do about it, save huff and puff and hope for a return to normality in an election or two's time. Same with international relations, come to that: Iran says it is not sanctions-busting; Putin said he has no soldiers in Crimea.
I fully expect this decision to be overturned in the SC for the reasons given by Lord Sumption on Newsnight. Proroguing for a new Queen's speech is legal and part of our constitution....
The court fully acknowledges that, but went on to rule that the principal purpose of this particular prorogation, on the evidence before it, was to frustrate Parliament.
That is nonsensical .How do you weigh such motivation and what is the law that says what the principal purpose has to be in any political decision ? SC will have to overturn or every single executive decision will be up to challenge.
But they already are. You have the right to apply for Judicial Review. As does everyone.
Dominic Cummings wanted to put the cat among the pigeons so in that sense he's been sucessful. I don't know whether even he expected it to end with discussions on whether or not the Queen should resign.
He'll probably be delighted by this. He's a "career sociopath" according to David Cameron, and "loopy" according to Nick Clegg.
Question - if the prorogation was unlawful, does not mean that the bills passed under prorogation processes are likewise?
And if the Supreme Court were to uphold the judgement will the Attorney General have to resign? On the basis that his legal advice is obviously bollocks? Where does that leave his legal advice on the Withdrawal Agreemrnt...?
I fully expect this decision to be overturned in the SC for the reasons given by Lord Sumption on Newsnight. Proroguing for a new Queen's speech is legal and part of our constitution....
The court fully acknowledges that, but went on to rule that the principal purpose of this particular prorogation, on the evidence before it, was to frustrate Parliament.
That is nonsensical .How do you weigh such motivation and what is the law that says what the principal purpose has to be in any political decision ? SC will have to overturn or every single executive decision will be up to challenge.
But they already are. You have the right to apply for Judicial Review. As does everyone.
Grounds for Brenda to fire Boris? Historically, ministries had to have the confidence of Parliament and the Crown. The latter has become a dead letter as in effect the ministry is the Crown for almost all practical purposes, but it is based on the assumption that ministers are actually telling the Queen the truth when advising her on exercising her prerogative powers.
HMQ does not "fire" her Prime Minister.
But if the supreme country finds the PM has acted unlawfully in the advice he has given her then of course his position and that of his government would be untennable.
My reading of the Whitlam Crisis was that the Govenor General acted beyond his de facto powers, but the Queen got most of the blame. It's crazy that in this case the Govenor General as the Queen's representative did not consult the Queen before taking such controversial action.
When I lived in Australia this episode still wrankled them, even the monarchists, despite being 25 years ago (at that time).
Observing this government's death is almost getting revolting. It is like watching a medieval execution where the victim is kept alive to see his own organs and entrails slowly removed. The Executive is being slowly executed.
And yet we've just had an opinion poll giving this government a 14% lead which in an election would translate to a majority of nearly 150 seats?
An inconvenient fact which explains why the opposition don't want an election.
I fully expect this decision to be overturned in the SC for the reasons given by Lord Sumption on Newsnight. Proroguing for a new Queen's speech is legal and part of our constitution....
The court fully acknowledges that, but went on to rule that the principal purpose of this particular prorogation, on the evidence before it, was to frustrate Parliament.
That is nonsensical .How do you weigh such motivation and what is the law that says what the principal purpose has to be in any political decision ? SC will have to overturn or every single executive decision will be up to challenge.
Every executive decision IS open to challenge. That’s what judicial review is and what is meant by the “rule of law”. It’s hard to get a court to overturn an executive decision but it has always been possible. The decision that the executive did not have legal authority to trigger Article 50 without primary legislation for example. There are loads of less newsworthy examples every day.
It’s dispiriting that one has to explain this rudimentary stuff.
Does that mean we can get a GE after all! It could be good for dear leader Boris!
Yes. The proroguation is near-irrelevant now. Canceling it might even help Boris.
Those LD numbers should TERRIFY Labour. Swinson is charming and plausible. Labour are about to adopt several insane commie policies. Labour’s position on Brexit is calamitously incoherent.
In a volatile election it’s easy to see the Libs charging through and beating Labour on votes, and maybe even MPs.
LibDems face a dilemma.
Would they prefer 100 seats and a majority Tory government and leave the EU. or 30 seats and a minority Lab government and a chance to remain in the EU?
I definitely prefer the latter.
What the LDs will want is the chance to unseat Labour as a party of government. Therefore the former.
I don't know why Masterson is so supportive of the government. He's going to be prorogued himself at the next election. He has nothing further to lose.
My flabber is gasted by the Court of Session verdict. Note to self: stop commenting on legal matters you know nothing about.
No 10's reply is an absolubte howitzer at the Unionist cause. It's a visceral naked attack on the Act of Union itself.
I thought nothing would surprise me, but that actually has.
Indeed. And at a very pro-Establishment part of the Scottish polity, too, speaking generally about the legal system rather than any judges personally of course. [edited]
Could the Queen be asked to give evidence? Did she directly ask JRM why the government was seeking to have a Queen's Speech?
That'd be a first.
I expect the Palace to release a statement at some point. They may well be minded to throw Johnson under the bus with the release of No 10's statement and the Queen's love of Scotland.
I fully expect this decision to be overturned in the SC for the reasons given by Lord Sumption on Newsnight. Proroguing for a new Queen's speech is legal and part of our constitution....
The court fully acknowledges that, but went on to rule that the principal purpose of this particular prorogation, on the evidence before it, was to frustrate Parliament.
That is nonsensical .How do you weigh such motivation and what is the law that says what the principal purpose has to be in any political decision ? SC will have to overturn or every single executive decision will be up to challenge.
From the evidence submitted to the court.
This was not a simple 'political decision', but an exercise of prerogative powers through advice to the monarch. The government were quite clear on why they were exercising the power of prorogation; the courts ruled, on the basis of the evidence submitted to them by the government, that the principle reason for prorogation was quite different from the declared one.
And I'm pretty sure that the Supreme Court will be quite happy to confirm that the power of prorogation does not encompass the right to frustrate Parliament as a principle reason for its exercise. (Though it is, of course, possible that they may interpret the particular evidence differently in this case.)
As for your second point, 'every single executive decision' is 'up for challenge', and has been for a long time, but only if it can be shown to have been arrived at unlawfully. The bar for getting any such case taken seriously is quite a high one, though.
I don't know why Masterson is so supportive of the government. He's going to be prorogued himself at the next election. He has nothing further to lose.
My flabber is gasted by the Court of Session verdict. Note to self: stop commenting on legal matters you know nothing about.
Masterton correctly worked out Johnson wasn't serious about "No deal" - which is his one aim to stop the Gov't doing that. He wants the UK to leave with a deal, is not a 2nd refer. No 10's response to the ruling is something else entirely.
Ms Cyclefree - if you're about, a question, for your expertise - has the government acceded to the request above re the documents and texts so far, in any way, and if not , might there be some form of fresh request on Tuesday, especially in relation to the judgement today ?
The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.
Great, let parliament decide and vote on it.......ah but they are not allowed to sit! Next!
At any time parliament could have passed a bill preventing the prorogation without a vote. But it didn't.
But that isn't the issue. The court isn't saying that prorogation needs a Parliamentary vote. As I understand it, they are saying that it remains a prerogative power but one which was exercised for an improper purpose.
Personally, I'm not sure the Court of Session is correct, but they are applying existing law, and if that is in fact the correct interpretation of existing law, Parliament had no need to pass legislation on it.
What I'm saying is that this should be left to Her Maj to decide (if you don't like that, get rid of the monarchy - but you'll need to win an election first).
As a general point, I don't particularly like laws where intent matters. I don't like the LBW law in cricket where it matters as to whether a batsmen was playing a shot or not. Similarly, I don't care what motives Boris had for calling a Queen's Speech. If it was in his gift to do so, then so be it.
Even worse in the LBW rule the intent of playing a shot only matters if the ball hits the batsman outside off stump. The problem here is that against spin bowlers lots of batsmen will bring the bat down behind the front leg only pretending that they are playing a shot.
What I dislike the most is the leg bye rule where your team only get runs if you intended to hit the ball. Either all leg byes should be disallowed or allowed even if no shot was intended.
I once played in a game with an independent umpire (the opposition paid for him, I think) and he didn't believe in leg byes! Every time the ball went away for leg byes, he signalled dead ball implying that the batsman had intentionally played the ball with his leg/body. I can understand that you don't want batsmen kicking the ball away and getting runs, but this was just ridiculous.
Dominic Cummings wanted to put the cat among the pigeons so in that sense he's been sucessful. I don't know whether even he expected it to end with discussions on whether or not the Queen should resign.
He'll probably be delighted by this. He's a "career sociopath" according to David Cameron, and "loopy" according to Nick Clegg.
From the Gove biography: As one friend puts it, both Gove and Cummings have 'an almost Leninist belief – almost Trotskyite belief, perhaps – that you have to permanently revolutionise'.
Could the Queen be asked to give evidence? Did she directly ask JRM why the government was seeking to have a Queen's Speech?
That'd be a first.
I expect the Palace to release a statement at some point. They may well be minded to throw Johnson under the bus with the release of No 10's statement and the Queen's love of Scotland.
One court has ruled that the action was not illegal. Another court has reached a different opinion. Both have allowed the Supreme Court to have the final word. Why not allow it to do so rather than relying on one opinion rather than the other to pass judgement in the meantime? Everything else is speculation for now.
As for No 10's comments, they are not without foundation. The practice they are drawing attention to is standard procedure in the US. Lawyers routinely refer national cases to federal courts with known tame judges which are judged most likely to reach a judgement in their favour, based on their past record. The case is then referred up the chain to the Supreme Court on appeal. It is accepted practice in the US, and as a consequence the decisions in the lower courts are of limited political consequence, because people are familiar with the game being played. That is particularly the case where different federal courts have reached contrary opinions on the same case.
The Prime Minister's spokesman is accusing senior Scottish judges of political bias and fails to recognise that Scots law is entirely distinct to English law, while also lying about the High Court decsion last week. The practice you are describing is forum slection, by whch different federal courts intepret the same law in different ways. That is entirely different to what has happened today.
What kind of thicko uses a US legal point to refer to a UK legal point, Phil is obviously not the full shilling. or a CCHQ bot.
Cogently put, but US superior court decisions have persuasive (but not binding) authority in E&W, just as Scottish ones do.
The Supreme Court has 2 Scots law Judges and one from Northern Ireland.
Their views are likely to be particularly influencial with respect to the Cherry appeal and the current Northern Ireland case if that gets through in time.
I think that the Belfast case is due to be heard on 16 September?
Dominic Cummings wanted to put the cat among the pigeons so in that sense he's been sucessful. I don't know whether even he expected it to end with discussions on whether or not the Queen should resign.
He'll probably be delighted by this. He's a "career sociopath" according to David Cameron, and "loopy" according to Nick Clegg.
From the Gove biography: As one friend puts it, both Gove and Cummings have 'an almost Leninist belief – almost Trotskyite belief, perhaps – that you have to permanently revolutionise'.
Those three years Cummings spent in Russia are interesting, yet opaque. Just what did he learn there beside fluent Russian?
Hmm. Kantar showed the Tories at 42% three weeks ago.
Obviously there is a large persistent difference from other pollsters.
iirc Kantar is one of those that doesn't prompt for BXP, and 7% in this poll does look unusually low. Other pollsters have them around 13%ish.
Of course, nobody really knows how that split would play out in a general election.
This is one reason to look at the changes compared to previous polls by the same pollster, and not only at the absolute numbers. The changes are: CON -4 LAB -4 LIB +5 BXP +2 GRN +- NAT +- OTH +1
That seems a pretty clear judgement on the politics of the last few weeks, and I'd have thought it would be scant consolation for the government that Labour are sharing their misery.
No 10's reply is an absolubte howitzer at the Unionist cause. It's a visceral naked attack on the Act of Union itself.
I thought nothing would surprise me, but that actually has.
As the Boris cheerleaders on here point out, the conservative and unionist party is neither conservative nor unionist but revolutionary
Rule of law - against Parliamentary sovereignty - against Business - against Party loyalty - against The Union - a price worth paying for revolution
Powerful unelected civil servants - pro Division of the country - pro Zero sum diplomacy with our neighbours - pro
If people want to vote for this rabble fine, but I ask all conservative with a small c people reading this to reflect on how such a party can possibly reflect your values. It is sad it has come to this but it is conservative in name only, it is revolutionary.
Could the Queen be asked to give evidence? Did she directly ask JRM why the government was seeking to have a Queen's Speech?
That'd be a first.
I expect the Palace to release a statement at some point. They may well be minded to throw Johnson under the bus with the release of No 10's statement and the Queen's love of Scotland.
One court has ruled that the action was not illegal. Another court has reached a different opinion. Both have allowed the Supreme Court to have the final word. Why not allow it to do so rather than relying on one opinion rather than the other to pass judgement in the meantime? Everything else is speculation for now.
As for No 10's comments, they are not without foundation. The practice they are drawing attention to is standard procedure in the US. Lawyers routinely refer national cases to federal courts with known tame judges which are judged most likely to reach a judgement in their favour, based on their past record. The case is then referred up the chain to the Supreme Court on appeal. It is accepted practice in the US, and as a consequence the decisions in the lower courts are of limited political consequence, because people are familiar with the game being played. That is particularly the case where different federal courts have reached contrary opinions on the same case.
The Prime Minister's spokesman is accusing senior Scottish judges of political bias and fails to recognise that Scots law is entirely distinct to English law, while also lying about the High Court decsion last week. The practice you are describing is forum slection, by whch different federal courts intepret the same law in different ways. That is entirely different to what has happened today.
What kind of thicko uses a US legal point to refer to a UK legal point, Phil is obviously not the full shilling. or a CCHQ bot.
Cheers pal. Interesting that you did not respond to one of my earlier comments. With reference to that, although we may disagree about the merits of the Scottish courts, surely you can at least agree with me (and the rest of the world) that your football team is cr*p?
I fully expect this decision to be overturned in the SC for the reasons given by Lord Sumption on Newsnight. Proroguing for a new Queen's speech is legal and part of our constitution....
The court fully acknowledges that, but went on to rule that the principal purpose of this particular prorogation, on the evidence before it, was to frustrate Parliament.
That is nonsensical .How do you weigh such motivation and what is the law that says what the principal purpose has to be in any political decision ? SC will have to overturn or every single executive decision will be up to challenge.
But they already are. You have the right to apply for Judicial Review. As does everyone.
In very limited circumstances.
Successfully in very limited circumstances. You can apply in a much larger number of circumstances; the court doesn't have to hear the case if they think it without merit.
What happens if the Supreme Court decides that prorogation is legal under English law but illegal under Scottish law?
That would be a perfectly possible outcome. They should then decide, not that one system of law trumps the others but that if a law isn't legal in all jurisdictions of the UK then it shouldn't go ahead.
Observing this government's death is almost getting revolting. It is like watching a medieval execution where the victim is kept alive to see his own organs and entrails slowly removed. The Executive is being slowly executed.
And yet we've just had an opinion poll giving this government a 14% lead which in an election would translate to a majority of nearly 150 seats?
lol - I very much doubt that will happen. It is the ground game that counts and the opposition parties have a tremendous advantage in numbers, motivation etc...
OK so the Opposition will get on with it then?
Parliament will vote for an election, when it suits them not when it is about giving BJ and the nutters around him a No Deal Brexit. The Government has been held to account bt the H of C, long may that continue.
But you've just basically said all the Opposition have to do is turn up on the day and the election is in the bag?
You can't get a better guarantee that No Deal is off the table than Corbyn in Downing St with a big majority until 2024 at least?
What was to stop BJ making the GE day 1st November and No Dealing in the meantime. BJ and those around him do not play fair. I say fuck him and only call an election in a few months time when relative stability is ensured. He or his succesor will have got a further extension and a new parliament can be chosen by the people to represent them.
The court held that he misled the Queen as to the reasons for the prorogation. It held that he did it, not to prepare for the Queen’s Speech, but rather to prevent parliamentary oversight of the executive
The answer to that is going to be that there isn't one single reason for prorogation, but multiple. This was already the longest parliamentary session in UK history, largely for Brexit-related reasons …. which no longer apply.
Sure, but you could achieve that with a short prorogation of a few days. To make it five weeks long has only one clear purpose.
Brexit Parties down to 45%. And that was before the party of law & order discovered they'd elected a lying crook
You're actually going to spin a 14% Con lead as good news for REMAIN?
You surely don't think the blue rinses are going to stay loyal now that Boris has been caught telling their Queen porkies?
What "porkies" did Boris tell the Queen ? This is highly defamatory .
The court held that he misled the Queen as to the reasons for the prorogation. It held that he did it, not to prepare for the Queen’s Speech, but rather to prevent parliamentary oversight of the executive
I haven't seen the advice to HMQ .I would be very surprised if it contained any lies.It is a matter of interpretation as to whether it might be considered misleading in context.
Observing this government's death is almost getting revolting. It is like watching a medieval execution where the victim is kept alive to see his own organs and entrails slowly removed. The Executive is being slowly executed.
And yet we've just had an opinion poll giving this government a 14% lead which in an election would translate to a majority of nearly 150 seats?
An inconvenient fact which explains why the opposition don't want an election.
We’ve also had polling saying the exact opposite.
Yes but the PB Tories just ignore those polls.
It is of course instructive that as in the parliamentary party the ranks of PB Tories have been thinned by resignations and voluntary deselections...
Actually even most under 35 Unionists still back staying in the UK.
The split is entirely Unionist Nationalist as always, there is a huge division between the likes of Unionist Protestant Leaver county Antrim and Catholic Remainer Nationalist county Fermanagh and Tyrone
Dominic Cummings wanted to put the cat among the pigeons so in that sense he's been sucessful. I don't know whether even he expected it to end with discussions on whether or not the Queen should resign.
He'll probably be delighted by this. He's a "career sociopath" according to David Cameron, and "loopy" according to Nick Clegg.
Solution to several issues at once - reconvene the UK parliament in Edinburgh.
Addresses: widespread distaste among voters for Westminster; unlawful prorogation; London-centricity; feeling that Scotland is ruled from 'abroad', issues with the fabric of the Houses of Parliament.... Plus lots more no doubt.
It would certainly be a good idea to rotate it, through all four parts. MPS would have an excuse for a house in each location. In retrospect it would have been far better than devolution which has just given us loads more lightweight politicians.
Can you name any other country which uses this model? It would be very impractical. The usual way around this problem is to have a clearly defined federal sytem, so that it is clear who has responsibility for what.
Decamping the UK government to a town in the middle of the UK, maybe Chesterfield, would be worth considering though.
Observing this government's death is almost getting revolting. It is like watching a medieval execution where the victim is kept alive to see his own organs and entrails slowly removed. The Executive is being slowly executed.
And yet we've just had an opinion poll giving this government a 14% lead which in an election would translate to a majority of nearly 150 seats?
An inconvenient fact which explains why the opposition don't want an election.
Observing this government's death is almost getting revolting. It is like watching a medieval execution where the victim is kept alive to see his own organs and entrails slowly removed. The Executive is being slowly executed.
And yet we've just had an opinion poll giving this government a 14% lead which in an election would translate to a majority of nearly 150 seats?
lol - I very much doubt that will happen. It is the ground game that counts and the opposition parties have a tremendous advantage in numbers, motivation etc...
OK so the Opposition will get on with it then?
Parliament will vote for an election, when it suits them not when it is about giving BJ and the nutters around him a No Deal Brexit. The Government has been held to account bt the H of C, long may that continue.
But you've just basically said all the Opposition have to do is turn up on the day and the election is in the bag?
You can't get a better guarantee that No Deal is off the table than Corbyn in Downing St with a big majority until 2024 at least?
What was to stop BJ making the GE day 1st November and No Dealing in the meantime. BJ and those around him do not play fair. I say fuck him and only call an election in a few months time when relative stability is ensured. He or his succesor will have got a further extension and a new parliament can be chosen by the people to represent them.
If the election is in the bag for Labour it doesn't matter if it's 15th October or 1st November.
Dominic Cummings wanted to put the cat among the pigeons so in that sense he's been sucessful. I don't know whether even he expected it to end with discussions on whether or not the Queen should resign.
He'll probably be delighted by this. He's a "career sociopath" according to David Cameron, and "loopy" according to Nick Clegg.
From the Gove biography: As one friend puts it, both Gove and Cummings have 'an almost Leninist belief – almost Trotskyite belief, perhaps – that you have to permanently revolutionise'.
Those three years Cummings spent in Russia are interesting, yet opaque. Just what did he learn there beside fluent Russian?
Very odd - am I being too suspicious in wondering whether Putin is cheering him on?
If the government doesn’t release the documents asked for in the humble address this will be taken into account by the SC next week .
I think the issue with the judgement today is regardless of where you sit on this matter the UK doesn’t have a written constitution .
Normally a government doesn’t act improperly , we are seeing a clash between convention and the law .
Bozo and his cabal clearly want to trash every convention , let’s think about this .
If there are no restrictions to the power to prorogue effectively a government could shut down the Commons for a year .
Now of course the argument could be politically that would cause lots of problems , the public could punish them in a future election however this alone is not reason to not restrict the power to prorogue .
I think this argument is probably the strongest to limit that power .
Solution to several issues at once - reconvene the UK parliament in Edinburgh.
Addresses: widespread distaste among voters for Westminster; unlawful prorogation; London-centricity; feeling that Scotland is ruled from 'abroad', issues with the fabric of the Houses of Parliament.... Plus lots more no doubt.
It would certainly be a good idea to rotate it, through all four parts. MPS would have an excuse for a house in each location. In retrospect it would have been far better than devolution which has just given us loads more lightweight politicians.
Can you name any other country which uses this model? It would be very impractical. The usual way around this problem is to have a clearly defined federal sytem, so that it is clear who has responsibility for what.
Decamping the UK government to a town in the middle of the UK, maybe Chesterfield, would be worth considering though.
Observing this government's death is almost getting revolting. It is like watching a medieval execution where the victim is kept alive to see his own organs and entrails slowly removed. The Executive is being slowly executed.
And yet we've just had an opinion poll giving this government a 14% lead which in an election would translate to a majority of nearly 150 seats?
An inconvenient fact which explains why the opposition don't want an election.
We’ve also had polling saying the exact opposite.
Yes but the PB Tories just ignore those polls.
It is of course instructive that as in the parliamentary party the ranks of PB Tories have been thinned by resignations and voluntary deselections...
One court has ruled that the action was not illegal. Another court has reached a different opinion. Both have allowed the Supreme Court to have the final word. Why not allow it to do so rather than relying on one opinion rather than the other to pass judgement in the meantime? Everything else is speculation for now.
As for No 10's comments, they are not without foundation. The practice they are drawing attention to is standard procedure in the US. Lawyers routinely refer national cases to federal courts with known tame judges which are judged most likely to reach a judgement in their favour, based on their past record. The case is then referred up the chain to the Supreme Court on appeal. It is accepted practice in the US, and as a consequence the decisions in the lower courts are of limited political consequence, because people are familiar with the game being played. That is particularly the case where different federal courts have reached contrary opinions on the same case.
The Prime Minister's spokesman is accusing senior Scottish judges of political bias and fails to recognise that Scots law is entirely distinct to English law, while also lying about the High Court decsion last week. The practice you are describing is forum slection, by whch different federal courts intepret the same law in different ways. That is entirely different to what has happened today.
What kind of thicko uses a US legal point to refer to a UK legal point, Phil is obviously not the full shilling. or a CCHQ bot.
Cogently put, but US superior court decisions have persuasive (but not binding) authority in E&W, just as Scottish ones do.
Not on this point. Forum shopping in political cases is a very, very different thing in the US, where judges are political appointees. And the US practice is a political, not a legal point, which has no persuasive merit in our law.
Observing this government's death is almost getting revolting. It is like watching a medieval execution where the victim is kept alive to see his own organs and entrails slowly removed. The Executive is being slowly executed.
And yet we've just had an opinion poll giving this government a 14% lead which in an election would translate to a majority of nearly 150 seats?
lol - I very much doubt that will happen. It is the ground game that counts and the opposition parties have a tremendous advantage in numbers, motivation etc...
OK so the Opposition will get on with it then?
Parliament will vote for an election, when it suits them not when it is about giving BJ and the nutters around him a No Deal Brexit. The Government has been held to account bt the H of C, long may that continue.
But you've just basically said all the Opposition have to do is turn up on the day and the election is in the bag?
You can't get a better guarantee that No Deal is off the table than Corbyn in Downing St with a big majority until 2024 at least?
What was to stop BJ making the GE day 1st November and No Dealing in the meantime. BJ and those around him do not play fair. I say fuck him and only call an election in a few months time when relative stability is ensured. He or his succesor will have got a further extension and a new parliament can be chosen by the people to represent them.
There is a strong argument to keep him in office until Christmas so the public have a clear view through the shop window before deciding whether to buy.
Not sure that will help Boris' cause given the evidence so far!
Dominic Cummings wanted to put the cat among the pigeons so in that sense he's been sucessful. I don't know whether even he expected it to end with discussions on whether or not the Queen should resign.
He'll probably be delighted by this. He's a "career sociopath" according to David Cameron, and "loopy" according to Nick Clegg.
From the Gove biography: As one friend puts it, both Gove and Cummings have 'an almost Leninist belief – almost Trotskyite belief, perhaps – that you have to permanently revolutionise'.
I don't know why Masterson is so supportive of the government. He's going to be prorogued himself at the next election. He has nothing further to lose.
My flabber is gasted by the Court of Session verdict. Note to self: stop commenting on legal matters you know nothing about.
Masterton correctly worked out Johnson wasn't serious about "No deal" - which is his one aim to stop the Gov't doing that. He wants the UK to leave with a deal, is not a 2nd refer. No 10's response to the ruling is something else entirely.
I thought Masterton supported Johnson last week on the basis that Johnson should be allowed to get a deal, when I presume as an intelligent man he must be aware Johnson was doing no such thing.
My question is why he went along with this, given he is going to be out of a job in a few weeks.
If Mr. Johnson is now to be unseated as leader of the Conservative Party, the question becomes who leads them into the GE and on what platform?
He won't be but if he is Raab or Patel will replace him on an all out war with diehard Remainers ticket, the membership will only vote got someone even more hardline than Boris now, there is utter fury about the die hard Remainers contempt for democracy with members I speak to and a formal alliance with the Brexit Party would be likely too
Brexit Parties down to 45%. And that was before the party of law & order discovered they'd elected a lying crook
You're actually going to spin a 14% Con lead as good news for REMAIN?
You surely don't think the blue rinses are going to stay loyal now that Boris has been caught telling their Queen porkies?
What "porkies" did Boris tell the Queen ? This is highly defamatory .
The court held that he misled the Queen as to the reasons for the prorogation. It held that he did it, not to prepare for the Queen’s Speech, but rather to prevent parliamentary oversight of the executive
I haven't seen the advice to HMQ .I would be very surprised if it contained any lies.It is a matter of interpretation as to whether it might be considered misleading in context.
Yes, it's already been interpreted –– under Scots Law –– as containing lies.
Both the decision of the Prime Minister that Parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given by the Prime Minister in the present case were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy. [51] There is no legal measure of the length of time between Parliamentary sessions, nor even a constitutional convention which governs that matter, albeit constitutional conventions are not justiciable. [54] Parliament may be prorogued for various reasons, including political reasons, and there is no statute, law or convention which requires Parliament to sit in constant session. [55]
Actually even most under 35 Unionists still back staying in the UK.
The split is entirely Unionist Nationalist as always, there is a huge division between the likes of Unionist Protestant Leaver county Antrim and Catholic Remainer Nationalist county Fermanagh and Tyrone
Yes but any border poll would not differentiate. NI is a single political entity and will vote as such. Even if it did not the traditional Irish Counties were abolished for administrative purposes in the early 1970a.
Observing this government's death is almost getting revolting. It is like watching a medieval execution where the victim is kept alive to see his own organs and entrails slowly removed. The Executive is being slowly executed.
Again, why haven't the opposition got rid of this dangerous government?
Because the opposition are also dangerous. Removing failed liar Johnson and replacing him with the failed liar Corbyn is not a solution. Which is why I don't want an election yet - we need to continue the reorganisation of the parties.
I envisage that I am going to end up in an expanded LibDems.
If prorogation falls because of any political motive, it's still the 1996-97 session of Parliament and Block Rockin Beats by the Chemical Brothers is no 1
I fully expect this decision to be overturned in the SC for the reasons given by Lord Sumption on Newsnight. Proroguing for a new Queen's speech is legal and part of our constitution....
The court fully acknowledges that, but went on to rule that the principal purpose of this particular prorogation, on the evidence before it, was to frustrate Parliament.
That is nonsensical .How do you weigh such motivation and what is the law that says what the principal purpose has to be in any political decision ? SC will have to overturn or every single executive decision will be up to challenge.
But they already are. You have the right to apply for Judicial Review. As does everyone.
In very limited circumstances.
Successfully in very limited circumstances. You can apply in a much larger number of circumstances; the court doesn't have to hear the case if they think it without merit.
You can bring proceedings for most things under the guise of something but if the Court won't hear the case it isn't much use is it?
Solution to several issues at once - reconvene the UK parliament in Edinburgh.
Addresses: widespread distaste among voters for Westminster; unlawful prorogation; London-centricity; feeling that Scotland is ruled from 'abroad', issues with the fabric of the Houses of Parliament.... Plus lots more no doubt.
It would certainly be a good idea to rotate it, through all four parts. MPS would have an excuse for a house in each location. In retrospect it would have been far better than devolution which has just given us loads more lightweight politicians.
Can you name any other country which uses this model? It would be very impractical. The usual way around this problem is to have a clearly defined federal sytem, so that it is clear who has responsibility for what.
Decamping the UK government to a town in the middle of the UK, maybe Chesterfield, would be worth considering though.
If the government doesn’t release the documents asked for in the humble address this will be taken into account by the SC next week .
I think the issue with the judgement today is regardless of where you sit on this matter the UK doesn’t have a written constitution .
Normally a government doesn’t act improperly , we are seeing a clash between convention and the law .
Bozo and his cabal clearly want to trash every convention , let’s think about this .
If there are no restrictions to the power to prorogue effectively a government could shut down the Commons for a year .
Now of course the argument could be politically that would cause lots of problems , the public could punish them in a future election however this alone is not reason to not restrict the power to prorogue .
I think this argument is probably the strongest to limit that power .
There is also the question of where you draw the line on limits to that power. That is far better done by the judges than at election time where it will be conflated with a thousand other political issues.
Solution to several issues at once - reconvene the UK parliament in Edinburgh.
Addresses: widespread distaste among voters for Westminster; unlawful prorogation; London-centricity; feeling that Scotland is ruled from 'abroad'; issues with the fabric of the Houses of Parliament; congestion around Parliament Square.... Plus lots more no doubt.
Would need to open a shedload of pubs and restaurants for all the freeloaders
Solution to several issues at once - reconvene the UK parliament in Edinburgh.
Addresses: widespread distaste among voters for Westminster; unlawful prorogation; London-centricity; feeling that Scotland is ruled from 'abroad', issues with the fabric of the Houses of Parliament.... Plus lots more no doubt.
It would certainly be a good idea to rotate it, through all four parts. MPS would have an excuse for a house in each location. In retrospect it would have been far better than devolution which has just given us loads more lightweight politicians.
Can you name any other country which uses this model? It would be very impractical. The usual way around this problem is to have a clearly defined federal sytem, so that it is clear who has responsibility for what.
Decamping the UK government to a town in the middle of the UK, maybe Chesterfield, would be worth considering though.
What happens if the Supreme Court decides that prorogation is legal under English law but illegal under Scottish law?
That would be a perfectly possible outcome. They should then decide, not that one system of law trumps the others but that if a law isn't legal in all jurisdictions of the UK then it shouldn't go ahead.
Exactly right, neither legal system is preeminent – that's a fundamental tenet of the Union.
If Mr. Johnson is now to be unseated as leader of the Conservative Party, the question becomes who leads them into the GE and on what platform?
He won't be but if he is Raab or Patel will replace him on an all out war with diehard Remainers ticket, the membership will only vote got someone even more hardline than Boris now, there is utter fury about the die hard Remainers contempt for democracy with members I speak to and a formal alliance with the Brexit Party would be likely too
For clarity you need to make your mind up whether “diehard” is one word or two. Your vocabulary contains little else so it shouldn’t be that hard.
Comments
...although advice to HM the Queen on the exercise of the royal prerogative of prorogating Parliament was not reviewable on the normal grounds of judicial review, it would nevertheless be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, which was a central pillar of the good governance principle enshrined in the constitution; this followed from the principles of democracy and the rule of law. The circumstances in which the advice was proffered and the content of the documents produced by the respondent demonstrated that this was the true reason for the prorogation....
He's been remarkably supportive of the Gov't too
https://twitter.com/PM4EastRen/status/1171743901553704960
"But the Court of Session judges said they were unanimous in their belief that Mr Johnson was motivated by the "improper purpose of stymieing Parliament", and that he had therefore effectively misled the Queen in advising her to suspend Parliament."
You can't get a better guarantee that No Deal is off the table than Corbyn in Downing St with a big majority until 2024 at least?
And if the Supreme Court were to uphold the judgement will the Attorney General have to resign? On the basis that his legal advice is obviously bollocks? Where does that leave his legal advice on the Withdrawal Agreemrnt...?
Ah, here we are.
I thought nothing would surprise me, but that actually has.
When I lived in Australia this episode still wrankled them, even the monarchists, despite being 25 years ago (at that time).
It’s dispiriting that one has to explain this rudimentary stuff.
My flabber is gasted by the Court of Session verdict. Note to self: stop commenting on legal matters you know nothing about.
This was not a simple 'political decision', but an exercise of prerogative powers through advice to the monarch.
The government were quite clear on why they were exercising the power of prorogation; the courts ruled, on the basis of the evidence submitted to them by the government, that the principle reason for prorogation was quite different from the declared one.
And I'm pretty sure that the Supreme Court will be quite happy to confirm that the power of prorogation does not encompass the right to frustrate Parliament as a principle reason for its exercise.
(Though it is, of course, possible that they may interpret the particular evidence differently in this case.)
As for your second point, 'every single executive decision' is 'up for challenge', and has been for a long time, but only if it can be shown to have been arrived at unlawfully.
The bar for getting any such case taken seriously is quite a high one, though.
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1171748101872394240?s=20
He'd get less damages than Christine Keeler
Their views are likely to be particularly influencial with respect to the Cherry appeal and the current Northern Ireland case if that gets through in time.
I think that the Belfast case is due to be heard on 16 September?
CON -4
LAB -4
LIB +5
BXP +2
GRN +-
NAT +-
OTH +1
That seems a pretty clear judgement on the politics of the last few weeks, and I'd have thought it would be scant consolation for the government that Labour are sharing their misery.
Rule of law - against
Parliamentary sovereignty - against
Business - against
Party loyalty - against
The Union - a price worth paying for revolution
Powerful unelected civil servants - pro
Division of the country - pro
Zero sum diplomacy with our neighbours - pro
If people want to vote for this rabble fine, but I ask all conservative with a small c people reading this to reflect on how such a party can possibly reflect your values. It is sad it has come to this but it is conservative in name only, it is revolutionary.
You can apply in a much larger number of circumstances; the court doesn't have to hear the case if they think it without merit.
The split is entirely Unionist Nationalist as always, there is a huge division between the likes of Unionist Protestant Leaver county Antrim and Catholic Remainer Nationalist county Fermanagh and Tyrone
And not much confidence in Downing St
The usual way around this problem is to have a clearly defined federal sytem, so that it is clear who has responsibility for what.
Decamping the UK government to a town in the middle of the UK, maybe Chesterfield, would be worth considering though.
Have you not been keeping up?
Something is not adding up.
I think the issue with the judgement today is regardless of where you sit on this matter the UK doesn’t have a written constitution .
Normally a government doesn’t act improperly , we are seeing a clash between convention and the law .
Bozo and his cabal clearly want to trash every convention , let’s think about this .
If there are no restrictions to the power to prorogue effectively a government could shut down the Commons for a year .
Now of course the argument could be politically that would cause lots of problems , the
public could punish them in a future election however this alone is not reason to not restrict the power to prorogue .
I think this argument is probably the strongest to limit that power .
Forum shopping in political cases is a very, very different thing in the US, where judges are political appointees. And the US practice is a political, not a legal point, which has no persuasive merit in our law.
Not sure that will help Boris' cause given the evidence so far!
`
My question is why he went along with this, given he is going to be out of a job in a few weeks.
Both the decision of the Prime Minister that Parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given by the Prime Minister in the present case were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy. [51] There is no legal measure of the length of time between Parliamentary sessions, nor even a constitutional convention which governs that matter, albeit constitutional conventions are not justiciable. [54] Parliament may be prorogued for various reasons, including political reasons, and there is no statute, law or convention which requires Parliament to sit in constant session. [55]
I envisage that I am going to end up in an expanded LibDems.
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1171694711700119557
The 51-49 split is notable enough, but what's more remarkable is that every group under 64 shows a majority for joining the RoI.
For all that it's dominated Brexit discussions, Northern Ireland will not be part of the UK in 20 years.
(Edit: sorry SO, hadn't noticed you'd already posted this.)
That is far better done by the judges than at election time where it will be conflated with a thousand other political issues.